Agenda and minutes

Conservation Advisory Group
Tuesday, 4th June, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions

Contact: Andy Higham 

No. Item


Election of Chair and Vice Chair


Dennis Stacey was elected chair of the Conservation Advisory Group and John West was elected Vice Chair. 




Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Anne Brown, Ergin Erbill, Charith Gunawardena and Guner Aydin and for lateness from Councillor Lindsay Rawlings. 



Membersof the ConservationAdvisory Groupare invitedto identify any disclosablepecuniary,other pecuniaryor non-pecuniaryinterests relevantto itemson theagenda.


There were no declarations of interest. 


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 183 KB

To receive and agree the Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Group that took place on Tuesday 12 March 2019. 


The minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2019 were agreed as a correct record. 


Proposals for 37 Church Hill

To receive a presentation on the proposals for 37 Church Hill. 


Andrew Porter from Ashton Porter Architects gave a presentation on his proposals for 37 Church Hill in Winchmore Hill. 


·         A previous application had been abandoned because of planning issues and Ashton Porter had been asked by the owners of the house at 337 Church Hill to produce a new design for the site.  


·         The house, a typical three bedroom 1930’s semi detached house, was situated on the edge of the conservation area opposite three cottages of historical interest. 


·         The new proposals included a light grey three storey side extension with a rear addition to the ground floor.  These had been scaled back from previous proposals to lessen the impact on the street scene.  The frontage of the extension fitted in with a traditional look, behind mock garage doors. The view from behind was more contemporary with wooden red cedar cladding and hidden guttering. 


·         The proposed materials would match existing where appropriate, but the design was meant to compliment and enhance the existing building at the rear whilst retaining the traditional detailing at the front and reducing the massing visible from the street. 


2.         Comments from CAG members: 


2.1       In general CAG members were happy with the massing of the design and the view from the front but there was some concern about the use of materials.


2.2       They also wanted to be certain that the building would be built as

designed with all the materials and detailing as in the plan.


2.3       The owner of the building, was the client, lived in the house and had appointed Andrew Porter to carry through the design to completion.  This was the best guarantee that the plans would be carried through as originally proposed. 


2.4       3D sketches of the fenestration and the junction between the old and the new as well as samples of materials were requested. 


AGREED:  CAG were happy with the principles of the new design but wanted more clarity on the use of materials.  They asked that the architect submit details in advance to ensure that they could be included in the planning permission conditions.    


Victoria Road, Edmonton Green

To receive a presentation on the proposals for Victoria Road, Edmonton Green. 


David Gouldstone from Peter Barber Homes gave a presentation on his proposals for housing in Victoria Road, Edmonton. 


·         This was a pre-application design for a small site in Victoria Road in the Church Street/Fore Street conservation area.  The design was at an early stage and had not yet been fully worked up. 


·         The new houses would enhance the street frontage and provide housing on a difficult multi-level site.


·         The proposals included four 3 storey paired terraced houses on the street frontage with single one storey buildings elsewhere, around a courtyard.  Proposed materials included pale rustic brick with cobbles and sedum roofs


·         Although the housing was new it was linked to the context of its surroundings, preserving the mature trees. 


·         There was no parking provision as this was a very well-connected site with lots of different public transport options. 


1.         Questions and Comments from CAG members


1.1       Communal refuse bins would be provided within a bin store incorporated into the design. 


1.2       For cycles it was planned to provide sheds for each unit which could be used either for cycles or other storage as required. 


1.3       Rather than having lots of satellite dishes and television aerials CAG urged the provision of one communal facility which could be linked to all the units.


1.4       The site was not densely used, the aim had been to protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties keeping overlooking to a minimum. 


1.5       All hard surfaces would be rainwater permeable to avoid risk of flooding. 


AGREED that CAG was supportive of the proposals.  They liked the designs which were sufficiently modern but also reflected the best of other housing in the area. 


Once the final designs were ready CAG asked to be able to see them again. 


Question and Answer Session with Stephen Downing (Tree Officer)


Stephen Downing, the Council’s tree officer for planning, talked to CAG about his role and responsibilities with regard to trees in the borough. 




1.            Stephen Downing was responsible for all statutory tree protections.  He was the statutory consultee on all development applications and all tree preservation orders across the borough.  Andy Robinson and his team were responsible for all the local authority owned trees including on highways and in parks. 


2.            There was no guidance or Council policy setting out the amount of tree cover needed in a particular area, although this was an area that the Council may be looking at as part of climate change mitigation. 


3.            All trees in a conservation area with a trunk diameter of 75mm measured at 1.5 metres above ground level were protected through legislation.  Anyone who wanted to carry out work on a tree of this size had to notify the Council of their intentions.  The Council then had 6 weeks to respond and to decide if it wished to protect a tree using a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).   


4.            The Council could respond to the notification in only two ways.  They could either respond with no objections or grant a tree preservation order.  The criteria for serving a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was whether it was expedient in terms of public amenity.  The term amenity had not been defined in the legislation.  It was for Council to interpret it.


5.            For a tree preservation order to be served, trees also had to be viewable from the street, in whole or in part, or be an exceptional specimen.  Trees in back gardens, for instance, that are not visible from the street, were unlikely to be protected. 


6.            A widely used, by the industry, amenity assessment tool was used to assess trees for preservation.  Every tree was scored on a points based system.  There was no written Council policy at present. 


7.            Currently biodiversity issues could not be used as reason to protect a tree


8.            Land owners have a right of appeal when a tree preservation order was served. 


9.            There was no requirement to consult the public on tree works in a conservation area, but all notifications were publicly viewable.  Works carried out had to follow what was set out in the notification.  It would be  an offence to do something different. 


10.         If a tree falls down and damages other property, the land owner would be responsible. 


11.         On the Council website there was a boroughwide plan of all the trees protected by tree preservation orders.  Stephen Downing would send information about any new TPO’s to the GIS team who would add them to the website. 


12.         About eight TPOs have been served this year so far.


13.         An application to carry out work to a TPO tree had to be submitted to the Council in a similar way to a planning application. 


14.         Only neighbouring properties have to be notified about tree preservation orders. 


15.         Officers were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


Heritage Briefing

To receive a briefing on current heritage issues. 


The group received a tabled briefing paper form Christine White on heritage issues:




1.            The responses and amendments to the local plan and heritage strategy following the recent consultations were due to be considered at the next Local Plan Sub Committee to be held in June 2019. 

2.            The Heritage Strategy was being revised, for adoption as supplementary planning guidance.

3.            A feasibility study was being undertaken into the viability of reconstructing the external shell of Broomfield House.  This could possibly be funded by selling the damaged stable block. 

4.            There had been another fire on the Broomfield House site which had damaged the wall facing the lake and some of the interior of the house, but this should not affect the feasibility work.

5.            The Broomfield Pond Swim Society were applying to the Mayor of London for funds to improve the ponds for swimming. 

6.            The Trent Park Museum has launched a fundraising initiative.  They hoped to raise £3.9m to set up the museum in the mansion.  Berkeley Homes are carrying out £4m worth of repairs to the building. 

7.            Historic England has set up a Historic High Streets Heritage Action Zone scheme.  The Council is looking at the possibility of applying for funding for high streets in the borough.  The deadline for expressions of interest is 18 July 2019. CAG asked to be consulted regarding proposals in a conservation area.  

8.            The National Lottery Heritage Fund have identified Enfield as one of its three areas of focus in London.  Enfield is working with local groups and will include some information on this when they launch the Heritage Strategy later in the year.

9.            Enfield will be taking part in this year’s Open House weekend with the support of the Enfield Society.  New entries have been submitted including from local architectural firms, Dujardin Mews and the new Meridian Water Station. 

10.         The Hadley Wood Neighbourhood Forum were updating their neighbourhood plan, following a second stage consultation, before formal submission to the Council. 

11.         Any proposals for the Transport for London car park at Cockfosters would be subject to planning permission. 


Planning Applications and Listed Building Applications for Discussion pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To receive a list of planning applications and listed building applications for discussion.                                                                                      Attachment B


The group received details of one planning application and listed building application for discussion. 


1.            2 Cannon Hill, London, N14 7HG (REF 19/01446/LBC)


This was a grade II listed building in Southgate Green.  The proposals included a single storey rear extension, re-thatching the roof and a single storey glass link between the pool and the house. 


CAG members commented that there was a lot of necessary information missing from the plans and no justification given for the changes.  They were keen that structural repairs should be undertaken before other works, recognising the urgent need for the repair of the roof. 


AGREED that CAG could not support the application as it was, although they welcomed the proposal for re-thatching the roof.  They asked for a full heritage survey, repair specification and more information on proposed materials. 



Toreceivefor informationfeedbackfrom theCAG Chairon items discussed at recent PlanningCommittee meetings:

·         19 March 2019 – No items had been considered by CAG

·         23 April 2019 – Walker School Application - approved – CAG supported

·         21 May 2019 – South Point House (infill) approved – CAG had not objected to an earlier proposal. 


NOTED the feedback provided on applications recently considered at Planning Committee.  This included the approval of the applications for Walker School and South Point House. 


CAG Working Party Updates pdf icon PDF 69 KB

To receive updates from CAG working parties.     Attachment C


CAG was presented with a list detailing those projects that were subject to a working party investigation. The list comments on the current position.  John West also tabled the working party report on Whitewebbs Barn application. 




1.            Peter Fisk stated that he was a dissenting member regarding the report for Garnault. (Item 8)


2.            Whitewebbs Barn (Planning Application 19/01657)


Peter Fisk and John West had met with Bridget Pereira and James Clark to discuss the proposals for the creation of 4 family houses involving restoration and conversion of the Grade II listed threshing barn. 


3.            Concern was expressed about the need to ensure that the work on the restoration of the barn would be carried out before the new buildings.  Watertight guarantees would be needed and assurances that the monies raised from the two new houses would be enough cover the costs of restoring barn.  A viability assessment had been received but the case officer had asked for another expert opinion.  CAG would only be willing to agree to the application if it would ensure the restoration of the grade II listed barn. 



To receive feedback from CAG officers on the applications considered at CAG in February and March 2019.                                                              Attachment D


RECEIVED:  the conservation officer’s update on cases presented at the February CAG meeting




1.                  The Council were still waiting for more information on the detailed proposals for 4 the Town, EN2 6LE (Ref:  19/00024/FUL). 


Conservation Areas and Listed Building Applications and Appeals Considered pdf icon PDF 616 KB

To receive an update on conservation areas, listed building applications and appeals determined.                                      Attachment E


The group received and noted the information provided on Conservation areas, listed building applications and appeals determined. 




1.            The retrospective application for 86 Old Park Ridings had been refused.  The applicants could appeal but it would be subject to enforcement. 



Toenablemembers of the ConservationAdvisoryGroup to bringup urgentmatters not covered elsewhere on theagenda


1.            Southgate Office Village and Surrounding Area – The Southgate conservation groups were planning an event on the 27th June 2019 involving Civic Voice to gather the views of the public on future plans for the Southgate area.  Bridget Pereira agreed to discuss with planning officers. 


2.            5G Rollout - Concern was expressed as to whether protections were in place.  Permitted development rights would need to be reviewed. 


3.            New Development in Northaw and Cuffley plans for over 10,000 new houses in the area were under consideration. 


4.            24-26 Forty Hall – There were reports that a wall had been demolished – Bridget Pereira agreed to look into it. 


5.            Mayor of London’s View on Development in the Green Belt – Concern was expressed that this could mean higher density urban development.  Andrew Newman commented that the Mayor of London has declared the authority is against proposals that resulted in building on the green belt.  Responses to the local plan consultation were being considered and the plan would have to fit into the overall framework of the London Plan.


6.            Whitewebbs Golf Course – This had been put up for sale and the terms of the lease were changing so that it could be used for activities other than golf. 




Noted that the next meeting of the Conservation Advisory Group will take place on Tuesday 2 July at 7pm in the Conference Room at the Civic Centre.